Timeline for ordered list format feature request -- subtopic numbering
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
May 26, 2018 at 11:24 | history | edited | dessert |
edited tags
|
|
Dec 14, 2017 at 15:10 | vote | accept | ravery | ||
Dec 14, 2017 at 2:19 | history | edited | ravery | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
Dec 14, 2017 at 1:52 | history | edited | Jon EricsonStaff |
edited tags
|
|
Dec 14, 2017 at 1:52 | answer | added | Jon EricsonStaff | timeline score: 8 | |
Dec 14, 2017 at 1:34 | history | edited | ravery | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added reply
|
Dec 14, 2017 at 1:03 | comment | added | ravery | @ThomasWard -- I've been bashed for not using the systems formatting, so I am formally asking for an update to that system. Note: as shown in the examples of what works, the system does support all elements of an outline except for differentiated numbering. | |
Dec 13, 2017 at 22:46 | comment | added | Thomas Ward Mod | Let me make a note here: what you want is to create a formal outline format. MarkDown doesn't support formal outlines, it supports the bare minimum functionality of that - ordered lists. An outline and an ordered list are similar, but NOT the same thing. | |
Dec 13, 2017 at 22:43 | comment | added | Thomas Ward Mod | You're quoting some type of 'style guide', however you don't reference it. I can't find any reference to these "formal styles" you reference, and given the past, you have run into several problems when trying to enforce these so-called "formal" styles. You'll need to probably do more than say "Yeah we need to use more formal formatting". Also note that MarkDown is not designed to be used for 'formal' articles, either. | |
Dec 11, 2017 at 18:18 | answer | added | Kaz Wolfe | timeline score: 3 | |
Dec 11, 2017 at 4:25 | answer | added | Olorin | timeline score: 1 | |
Dec 11, 2017 at 1:39 | history | edited | ravery | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1576 characters in body
|
Dec 11, 2017 at 1:21 | history | asked | ravery | CC BY-SA 3.0 |